10906592 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2012)

Ex Parte Mourra

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 30, 2012

10906592 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JOHN MOURRA ____________ Appeal 2010-000739 Application 10/906,592 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal 2010-000739 Application 10/906,592 2 Appellant has filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) (“Request”) on January 17, 2012 for reconsideration of our Decision mailed November 17, 2011 (“Decision”). The Decision affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Brown. Appellant contends that the Board overlooked the argument that Brown fails to disclose at least one invocation adapter to morph a specified registered command. According to Appellant, modifying an object class does not morph a command. Request 2-3. We find this argument unpersuasive for the reasons given in our previous Decision. We agree with the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 3-4, 11-12) that Brown discloses “configuring at least one invocation adapter to morph to a specified one of said registered commands” within the meaning of claim 4. Appellant further contends that the Examiner has not provided a feature by feature mapping of the disputed limitations of claim 4 to the cited art as required by MPEP § 1207.02(a)(1)(9)(e). Request 4. However, “all that is required of the [Patent] [O]ffice to meet its prima facie burden of production is to set forth the statutory basis of the rejection and the reference or references relied upon in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of [35 U.S.C.] § 132.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We find that the Examiner has met the statutory burden. See Ans. 3-4, 11-12. We decline to change our prior Decision. REHEARING DENIED Appeal 2010-000739 Application 10/906,592 3 tj